The Law Reform Commission suggested that the minimum age of criminal responsibility
should be raised from seven to ten. The Commission believed that the present
limit under the Juvenile Offenders Ordinance was too low and too cruel to the
youth. The age limit set by Hong Kong was among the lowest in the world.

Damning Rights verdict from UN (November 6, 99) (General)

The United Nations released a damning verdict on Hong Kong's post-handover
human rights record, expressing concerns about judicial independence and civil
liberties. The United Nations Human Rights Committee urged the SAR Government
to reconsider the problem of scrapping the municipal councils and to review
laws on phone tapping and freedom of association. The Committee was "seriously
concerned" at the implications for judicial independence of the questions
of reinterpretation of the Basic Laws in the matter of the right of abode.

A Hong Kong SAR resident, Wu Man, who was abducted by five or six gunman in
Bangkok on June 14 before being flown back to Public Security Bureau at Guangzhou
where he had been detained for five months. He was the British National (Overseas)
passport holder. Wu, 39, was wanted by mainland police for allegedly being involved
in a kidnap plot in Hong Kong masterminded by "Big Spender" Cheung
Tze-keung, who was executed in Guangzhou last year.

Mr. Wu sought help by sending a letter to the legislator Emily Lau Wai-hing.
Ms Lau pointed out that the British Government should protect all British passport
holders when they traveled with that passport. She had sent a letter to urge
the British Prime Minister Tony Blair to take steps to secure the release of
Mr. Wu. The British Consulate in Thailand received an apology from the Thailand
Government due to the inappropriate action taken by Thailand authorities. The
British Consulate admitted that there was a dilemma as the Chinese government
did not recognize the British (Oversea) passports and thus treated Mr. Wu as
a Chinese citizen.

However, the Chinese Government refuted that the procedure was appropriate
as the detainee had committed crimes in the mainland. Moreover, there was a
surrender of fugitive offenders' agreement between China and Thailand. On the
contrary, there was no agreement of exchanging the fugitive offenders between
Hong Kong and Thailand. Hong Kong had surrenders of fugitive offenders agreements
with the following countries: The Netherlands, Canada, Australia, The Philippines
and India, but not China. The spokesman of the Security Bureau said that it
tried to approach both governments to collect more information.

Mr. Hau Chi-sum, the social worker, and the local boys of the boys' home were
bullied and assaulted by four Vietnamese boys. These four Vietnamese boys, who
were waiting for the court order, used an excuse that the toilet was not in
service to tempt Mr. Hau to go into the toilet. When he came in, they closed
the door and bullied them. Many local boys also complained that unconvicted
Vietnamese boys had beaten them. Facing the problem, the social workers of the
boys' home asked Legislators for help. They also condemned that keeping the
unconvicted children and the convicted children together at boys' home was a
violation of the United Nations International Children's Convention.

According to Article 10 2(b) the International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights, it was known that the accused persons shall be segregated from convicted
persons and shall be subjected to separate treatment appropriate to their status
as unconvicted person. However, the four boys, who were accused, had to live
with the boys (including the Vietnamese and local boys) who were convicted under
care and probation order.

A 14-year-old boy was kept in solitary confinement for six days at boys' home
and a magistrate ruled that the boy's human right was violated. The teenager
had attempted to escape from O Pui Shan Boys' Home, Lai Chi Kok, and he was
sent to the court and no punishment was offered to him. The magistrate stated
that the boyneeded not answer and released him. It was known that the boy had
been kept in the dormitory for six days, from August 6 to August 12, for being
suspected ringleader of a late-night disturbance and attempted to escape from
the home.

The magistrate condemned that it was a form of illegal imprisonment as it
violated the Reformatory School Ordinance and the Bill of Rights Ordinances
(BORO). Therefore, in law, the alleged crime of attempting to escape from legal
custody did not does not really exist. The magistrate ruled that there was confusion
in providing order in the boys' home as the home's superintendent said that
the lower colleagues recommended the decision. The court claimed that the superintendent
had half-baked knowledge on the well being of the accused.

Legislator Albert Ho Chun-yan, who assisted the case, said keeping juvenile
inmates in solitary confinement without records was common and he would pursue
this matter in Legco. The Social Welfare Department admitted this fault and
examined the existing practices and procedures in respect of segregation.

Mr. Gurung, a Nepalese businessman, was refused permission to re-enter Hong
Kong when returning from a seven-day business trip to Nepal in November 1999.
On 14 December 1999, the Director of Immigration issued a removal order against
him, which he successfully challenged when the tribunal decided he had permission
to say. However, the judge of the Court of First Instance, Mr. Justice Michael
Hartmann, said non-permanent residents could be refused to re-entry the SAR
after s/he left the territory. He sought to reassure expatriates yesterday after
ruling that non-permanent residents lose their permission to remain in Hong
Kong after they went abroad.

Mr. Justice Hartmann said that whenever a person resided in Hong Kong in terms
of a permission to remain leaves the territory, his or her permission automatically
expired. This was so even if the permission still had a period of time to run.
When a person returned to Hong Kong and wished to resume residence, a person
should seek a new permission from the immigration authorities and the authorities
had discretionary power to decide whether grant the permission or not. In that
case, the Director of Immigration was required to re-consider Mr. Gurung's admission.

The first District Council Election in the HKSAR (November 28, 99) (Article
25)

The district council election was held on 28 November 1999. 390 out of 798
candidates were elected for the 18 District Councils while 76 members won automatically.
In addition, the government had enacted legislation to reintroduce 102 appointed
seats in District Councils, which would replace the District Boards. In comparsion
with the District Boards elections in 1995, which all members were fully elected
by geographic constituencies, Hong Kong people's right to elect their representatives
was furtherly infringed.

According to the inaugural policy speech in 1997, the Chief Executive had stated
that "Hong Kong should take a fresh look at the Municipal Councils and
the District Boards." The existing Urban council and Regional council were
forced to sign the amendment of the ordinances to abolish the two-council system.
The government explained that the abolition of the councils could be more effective
and efficient for public services and avoid wastage of resources. The Government
officials found it "questionable whether there are still valid reasons
for maintaining the three-tier system of government". The government claimed
that after abolished the two councils, Urban Council and Regional Council, the
power of the District Council would be increased. The district councilors would
be invited to sit in the consultative committee and acted as advisors in the
system.

However, the public did not agree to abolish the two councils. According to
a survey conducted by the Social Science Research Center at the University of
Hong Kong in 1998, it found that only 16.2% of those polled agreed with the
abolition plan, while 60.7% were in favor of a merger of the two Councils. Legislator
Emily Lau Wai-hing commented that the government did not have proper public
consultation. She doubted whether the people really supported to eliminate the
councils when there was another option -- a merger of the two. Democrat Lee
Wing-tat said that it was a backward step in democratic development. Fellow
Democrat Li Wah-ming even speculated the underlying reason for abolition. In
South China Morning Post on 28 November 1999, he said, "This is really
a political decision. It is not only based on the improvement of urban services
and a deliberate more to anti-democratize the political arena, a decision made
by Mr. Tung and backed by the central government (Beijing) and the Communist
party." Surprisingly, the pro-Beijing Democratic Alliance for the Betterment
of Hong Kong (DAB) maintained to oppose the proposal and it supported "one
council, one department" plan.

Moreover, on the question of the power of the newly formed District Council,
the candidates generally perceived negatively. In the study conducted by Oriental
Daily News, nearly all respondents (candidates) did not trust the District Council
could be empowered by the abolishment of the two councils. Therefore, the claim
that the government would further allocate the power to the regions seemed to
be invalid. In the report of Hong Kong Human Rights Commission, which was sent
to the United Nations in 1999, it complained appointing system was unfair. It
urged the Hong Kong SAR government to reform such a low representative election
system and suggested to have equal and universal suffrage. The concluding observation
provided by the United Nations Human Rights Committee also shared the same view.
The Committee claimed that the abolition of the Municipal Councils would further
diminish the opportunity of HKSAR residents to take part public affairs and
suggested strengthening people's political participation.

The voting rate was only 38.82% (816,503 voters), which was a little more than
that of the election of district committee in 1994. (~36.1%). The pro-Beijing
camp and the appointed members gained more than half of the seats in District
Council while the democratic members gained less than half. That implies that
the democratic members had less influence and bargaining power in the Council.

More illegal immigrants, who were detained at Tai Ku Lan detention center,
complained that they were being assaulted by the police during detention. Apart
from seven illegal immigrants complained that they were assaulted on October
26, ten complaints were made in that center from October 1998 to 1999. The detention
center had five cells and could keep up to 300 persons. Four cells were used
to detain illegal immigrants who were waiting for sending back to the mainland.
However, due to the lack of electronic surveillance system, the police planned
to install cameras to prevent illegal immigrants used an excuse of being assaulted
to prolong staying at Hong Kong. Moreover, it could avoid the police were being
defamed.

In fact, seven complainants claimed that they were bullied and assaulted by
four policemen during having a dispute on tidying up the bed. The complaints
had been referred to CAPO and two policemen were accused of assault and the
trial would be heard on December 8, 1999.